Jane Philpott

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised the fact that with a topic as sensitive and personal as this, there is a great diversity of opinion. I do not think my colleague, the Minister of Justice, nor I need to be convinced of the wide range of opinions on this issue.

We have respectfully and patiently listened to all of those opinions. We have worked with all of the members of the House to achieve legislation that we believe appropriately recognizes the fact that people need to be able to exercise personal autonomy, while at the same time respecting the fact that we need to protect vulnerable people in our country.

The member may not be aware of the fact that the previous government, the party he now sits with, in fact had the opportunity to address the Supreme Court decision a long time ago. In fact, it was February 6, 2015, that the previous government could have begun to take action on this issue. The Conservatives could have brought this issue to Parliament at that time to be discussed and debated. However, it was never brought before Parliament to be discussed, except in a Liberal motion in an attempt to bring it forward.

It was clear from the delay with which the former government approached this issue that it was not serious about developing a comprehensive and careful response to Carter. The task has fallen to us in this House, to this Parliament and to this government. I hope we will recognize the importance and non-partisan role that we now need to play to ensure Canadians will be able to access medical assistance in dying.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her comments and questions. She is right that we had taken great inspiration from the province of Quebec. It spent a number of years, as she is well aware, debating the details of what legislation would look like in order to put legislation in place for medical assistance in dying. It is a luxury that we have not had as we put this legislation in place.

She also references the opinions of doctors, and I recognize myself that the opinions of doctors are varied. However, I want to point out to her that there is an organization in the country that advocates on behalf of excellent medical care and works with doctors.

The Canadian Medical Association represents 83,000 doctors across the country. It worked hard on this issue. It did two national surveys of thousands of physicians across the country and invested a tremendous amount of time and money. It made it very clear that evidence showed that even though 29% of physicians had expressed a willingness to participate in medical assistance in dying in cases of terminal illness, they believed if there was not a piece of legislation in place on June 6, physicians would be very unlikely to participate, and it would be a serious problem around access.

That is something for which members of the House have to take responsibility. If indeed the member opposite believes that she wants this to be available across the country then she, like all of us, has a responsibility to take the steps necessary to pass the bill.

I would point out to the member opposite that the bill includes within it a commitment to ensure that we continue to study the pieces of detail that require further reflection and research. We are committed to doing that. I give her my word.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague opposite that this is indeed a very important matter. I want to congratulate her for hosting town halls. I want to congratulate all the members in this House for the amount of consultation that has taken place.

I want to remind members of this House about how much debate has already taken place. Despite our serious time constraints, we have undertaken 23.5 hours of debate in this House on this bill. Some 93 members of Parliament have spoken on this bill. A number of members of Parliament have spoken twice: the member for Montcalm, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and the member for Kitchener—Conestoga. Both non-recognized parties have participated in the debate. I have had conversations with members of all sides of this House with respect to the debate. I have been available, as has my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to address members' questions.

Now, what is before us and what Canadians expect of us is for us to move forward with the bill, to ensure that medical assistance in dying is available to Canadians who require it and, at the same time, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to protect vulnerable people.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is very important that we get legislation in place, that we ensure, for the sake of people who seek medical assistance in dying, the bill is passed before the deadline.

My hon. colleague knows the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The Supreme Court has made it very clear to this House that there is no question that Canadians must have access to medical assistance in dying. We respect that decision of the court. We have put a tremendous amount of thought, effort, and consultation in place in order to reach this legislative bill which we have before us now.

I want my colleague to understand the very serious implications that patients in Canada will face if the bill is not in place.

My colleague opposite may be aware that I am a physician myself. I have a number of colleagues who are physicians. I have worked closely with health care providers.

I can tell all the members opposite with certainty that if there is not a legislative framework in place that provides protection to health care providers when that June 6 deadline is passed, there will be people in this country, who would otherwise be eligible to have medical assistance in dying, to give them the opportunity for a dignified and peaceful death, who will not be allowed because the health care practitioners will not have the support.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is, in fact, a matter of the utmost importance.

We are debating a bill on medical assistance in dying. It is something on which every member of the House has a responsibility to provide leadership. We have been given the opportunity to represent the people of Canada in the House and we are expected to provide legislation.

I want to remind my colleague opposite of the unique nature of the circumstances in which we find ourselves on this day. The bill has been introduced because of a specific requirement of the government to respond to a decision of the Supreme Court.

I believe members of the House are familiar with the circumstances that have led us to this situation. We are now facing an important deadline. It is a deadline that our constituents expect us to reach with success and with appropriate legislation in place.

I want to remind members that the Supreme Court has provided Parliament with a deadline of June 6, and before that date, we are expected, all of us, to work together to put in place a complex regulatory framework around medical assistance in dying. We have a responsibility to do that well. We have a responsibility to do that in a thoughtful way.

There is a tremendous amount that is at risk for Canadians if we are unable to successfully reach that deadline and for that reason, we believe it is very important that we take the appropriate steps to reach the deadline.

[Health, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for his question. We are doing everything we can to protect Canada from this infectious disease.

Last week, the Minister of International Development and I were pleased to announce that Canada will be contributing close to $5 million to the global fight against Zika.

This money will be used to conduct more research, develop improved diagnostic tests, better prevent the transmission of the disease through more effective mosquito control measures, and contribute to humanitarian aid.

[Health, May 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to addressing problems such as prescription drug abuse. It is something I am quite familiar with as a family doctor myself.

Our approach to drug policy in the country is firmly founded on the best scientific evidence. We will be using a public health approach. That approach will seek to maximize education and to minimize harm. We will respect human rights, and ensure this problem is addressed correctly.

[Health, May 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that there is no attempt to ban the sales of acetaminophen or Tylenol from pharmacy shelves.

On the matter of the other question that was raised, our government ensures that drug policy decisions are made on the basis of strong, scientific evidence.

Where traditional drug treatment options have not worked in the most difficult cases, evidence has shown that the use of diacetyl morphine or heroin can result in better outcomes for those patients. This kind of therapy only happens rarely in Canada, and it is under the close supervision of doctors in a clinical setting such as a hospital.

[Indigenous Affairs, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, indigenous or otherwise, need to have access to the mental health care that is necessary and this is a responsibility of all of us.

In terms of indigenous communities, I am pleased to inform the member that I am in conversations with my officials and the first nations and Inuit health branch on a daily basis about how we could increase access to mental health services in communities like La Loche and Cross Lake. We are working toward a plan to be able to enhance those services and I will be pleased to report our progress at a further date.

[Health, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.

As I have said, we fully subscribe to the principles of the Canada Health Act, which is designed to ensure that all Canadians have reasonable access to all necessary medical and hospital services based on need, not ability to pay.

I am committed to working with all my Canadian partners to strengthen our universal public health care system while upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act.